27/02/2012 Newsnight

The Sun is accused of sanctions thousands of pounds of illegal

payments to police and public servants. The Met reveals a network

of corrupt officials, paid by News International. We speak to Neville

Thurlbeck, the former chief reporter at News of the World.

Timing for News International couldn't be better. Today Charlotte

Church launched a scathing attack, as she received �600,000 in damages

over claims her phone was hacked. What I have learned has sickened

and disgusted me. Nothing was deemed off limits by those who

pursued me and my family to make money for news corporation.

speak to John Prescott, a former Chief Constable, and the Mirror's

former crime reporter in the studio. Fresh allegations against A4e, the

company that receivess thousands from the Government in contracts.

More discomfort, with the NHS reforms, this time from inside

Government as well. Nick Clegg approves an open letter, asking for

more changes. And was Putin the tart of a foiled

assassination attack, or is Soviet history being repeated ahead of the

elections. TRANSLATION: All of these famous

processes against the Trotskyists, will be built on allegations of

Good evening. The Sun newspaper stands accused tonight of sanctions

payments of tens of thousands of pounds to corrupt officials within

the police and other public bodies. In one of the most explosion

allegations, that the Leveson Inquiry has yet heard, Deputy

Assistant Commissioner, Sue Akers, said the paper had a culture of

illegal payments authorised at the most senior level, and suggested

some public officials had been put on retainer. She vowed to expose

those who had received cash and see them brought to justice.

The inquiry heard the former News International editors, Rebekah Wade,

and Andy Coulson, were warned that there was widespread hacking as

early as 2006. We speak to former News of the World reporter, Neville

This is how the relationship between the police and the press

should work. One needs stories to fill the paper, the other needs

publicity to help solve crimes, everyone is a winner. But you will

note, from this old news real, no money changes hands. It was,

apparently, a completely different matter at News International. Today

the second part of the Leveson Inquiry began, with damming

allegations of wholesale corruption. The relationship between the police

and the media, and News International in particular, was,

at best, inappropriately close, and if not, actual lie corrupt, -- if

not actually corrupt, very close to it. Today the investigation into

phone hacking and police corruption, Sue Akers in, uniform, gave an

update on what has happened so far, police taking significant sums of

money from the Sun. One was paid in excess of �80,000, and one arrested

journalist receiving �150,000 in cash to pay his sources, some of

whom were public officials. payments had been made not only to

police officers, but a wide range of public officials. So there are

catagories as well as police, military, health, Government,

prison and others. It suggests that payments were being made to public

officials who were in all areas of public life. I have said that the

current assessment is it reveals a network of corrupted officials.

That is a relative who allegedly helped hide a payment. The police

abecause the payments were in cash, only a few of the reacceptents have

been so far been -- recipients have been identified. There was a

culture at the Sun of illegal payments, and systems were created

to facilitate those payment, while hiding the identity of the

officials receiving the money. the former News International

editor, and former News International chief executive,

Duwayne Brooks, gave evidence to a Commons investigation - Rebecca

Brooks gave evidence, she did confirm that the police were paid,

in 200. We have paid the police in the past. Will you do it in the

future? You are operating within the law, it is the same for

subterfuge, and video bags. It is illegal for police officers to

receive payments. I said within the law. Much later she issued a

statement saying she had no knowledge of any payments at News

International to the police. There are many examples of how this close

relationship works. When Neil and Christine Hamilton went to a police

station to answer questions about a completely false allegation of rape,

they saw how the tip-offs worked. They had been promised no press and

no publicity, and yet, this is what they got. Within ten minutes of our

arrival, journalists started to dribble into the street outside. By

the time we came out, after two or three hours of questioning, there

were about 150 or so journalists round, not just Fleet Street

journalists, but radio, TV, sound booms, cameras, the lot. It was a

bit like the Oscars ceremony in reverse.

You might have thought that once the police began their

investigation into illegal activities at the News of the World,

this contact between News International and the police would

have stopped. Actually, far from it. Today, the inquiry was shown an

extraordinary e-mail that suggests that, not only was the chief

executive of News International, Rebecca Brooks, being briefed on

the investigation, that the police were carrying out, she was also

consulted on how far she thought that investigation should go.

The e-mail is from the chief lawyer At the end News International were

insisting that nobody else was involved. But the e-mail goes on to

say that the police have a list of up to 110 victims and payment

records of News International to Mulcaire of over �1 million. This

was a huge operation, not just one rogue reporter. The e-mail says it

demonstrates a pattern of victims replaced by the next one, who

becomes flavour of the week or Today the former Deputy Prime

Minister, giving his own evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, was clear

what he thought had happened. are highly-paid, highly-intelligent

people, I think there is more a conspiracy of silence to hide the

facts, I'm stronger of that view in the last few months. Today another

celebrity settled with News International, Charlotte Church

accepting �600,000 in compensation. Did the police investigation into

phone hacking fail, because police were too close to News

International? There are plenty more witnesses and hearings to come.

Joining us now is Neville Thurlbeck, the former news editor and chief

reporter at News of the World. He's now -- he was arrested for his

involvement in phone hacking and bailed until next month, for legal

reasons we can't ask him questions relating to that case, for the

record he denies phone hacking. Neville Thurlbeck, Sue Akers lists

the payments to police and public officials, do you recognise that

culture in your newsroom? Not in the News of the World. In my time

there when I was news editor, 2001- 2003, I was in charge of looking at

what payments were being made, and to whom. At no time was I even

requested by a reporter to pay a police officer, it simply didn't

cross our radar. The editor at the time, during my period on the news

desk was Rebekah Brookes, and latterly, Andy Coulson, and again,

those two individuals they never requested we pay anyone. You insist

it only happened it at the Sun and never at the News of the World?

don't say it happened at the Sun either, I don't say that at all. We

have to see where the evidence takes us on that. You are saying

you think she's wrong? That the criminality exists on the Sun.

There was a very strayed forward remark from Akers, there was a cull

-- straight forward remark from Sue Akers, there was a culture of

paying officials, thousands of pounds are you saying that didn't

happen at the Sun? I don't think anybody knows outside the police

force. She also said that people who were connected to these public

officials were being paid. Now that is often the case. Sometimes

journalists get information, secondhand, not necessarily from

the film star, or the police officer, but from a friend of the

film star or the friend of the police officer. Did that happen at

News of the World? These people wouldn't always reveal their

sources or how they got the information. You knew money was

changing hands and going to sources? It would be up to us to

check the information. You couldn't check out the voracity of every

single contact that came into the office. It wouldn't have been a

surprise to you to know that money was being paid to sources for the

kind of scoops that News of the World was clearly getting at the

time? Newspapers right across Fleet Street, historically, have always

paid money for good stories. This has been going on for 150 years, I

don't think there is anything new in that. Presumably you paid money

to those friends, to friends of friends, to officials? We paid

money to a variety of sources. But what I'm telling you now. Including

police officers, including? Not at all. I'm making myself very clear

on this, forgive me for repeating it one more time. We never paid

police officers money for stories. Could you have paid friends of

police officers, could you have paid police officers through other

means? I have got no way of telling if that happened. I think it would

be a physical impossibility, to check out the family tree of every

single person that came knocking at our door. It is interesting that,

for example, one journalist submitted one expense of �150,000

over the years, to pay out sources. That's entirely credible. And one

person received �80,000? Let's put this into perspective. A journalist

who pays 150,000 to his contacts, over 20 years, isn't a significant

amount of money. When he might be paying, for example �15,000, or

�20,000. We don't know if it was twenty years, it could have been

two years? Some of the people had been on the newspapers for 40 years.

These were crime stories, who was being paid, who would have the

information, if it wasn't the police and the public bodies, who

do you think the money was going to? There is a variety of sources.

When I was crime reporter, a lot of my sources came from people who

were connected to the investigations, they might even be

criminals themselves. They might be police informants. Did you pay

criminals and police informants? didn't pay criminals. Who did you

pay? You would pay people who would have knowledge of what is going on.

Who were those people? They would be people who knew police officers,

people who were perhaps friends of police officers. You know people,

the information is given...It highly possible that some of that

money went back to the police or public officials? We have no way of

telling that. What I'm telling you is, that information can often, is

often frequently given to newspapers second and third hand.

Now the originator of that information might inadvertantly be

a police officer, but the person who comes to you is perhaps two or

three people down that chain. It is the same with showbiz and short.

What type of some would you imagine changing hands for that kind of

scoop? What sort of scoop. A major front page scoop on News of the

World, a cover story? A front page splash of the News of the World, is

that what you are asking me to give you a figure on? It would be in the

order of between �5,000 to �25,000, depending on the priority the

editor gave the story at the time. For a crime story? Not necessarily

that much for a crime story. These days they tend to command smaller

currency, I would say, probably talking in the order of hundreds

rather than thousands. You could be paying that kind of money to one

source? That is not unusual, that is Fleet Street-wide, it is not

unique to News International titles. Sue Akers is saying that there was

a culture of illegal payments, she stresses there was illegal payment,

why would she say illegal if it wasn't payment that had been

outlawed, for example, going to the wrong people? This act, the 1906

anti-Corruption Act was frameed, prevention of Corruption Act, was

framed to discourage police officers from turning a blind eye

toe armed robberies. Under the terms of that act we are now

prosecuting, potentially, journalists for taking possession

of what Sue Akers called today salacious gossip. These people,

these journalists could be potentially facing three years in

jail, and the loss of their careers, their livelihoods and reputation

for the sake of this 1906 act. She's talking about illegal

payments and people being put on retainers? I have no knowledge of

this. But it is possible, that happened. That people were put on

retainers, presumably those are the people that give you not just one

story, but story after story? not here to defend any criminality,

all I'm saying is this. Were you aware of those retained?

Nottingham Forest aware of any criminality, I'm not -- I'm not

aware of any criminality, I'm not here to defend it. I'm saying there

should be a perspective put on this, and it shouldn't be looking through

the prisism of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is too heavy a

sledgehammer to crack the nut. Let's hear about the e-mail from

Tom Crone to Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, that there was

widespread hacking, and Rebekah Brooks was consulted by the police

on how far the investigation should go. What are we to make of that?

have said, before I came on the show tonight, I'm not going to

discuss anything to do with Operation Weeting tonight. We're

encrouching on that by talking about that particular memo, I'm

afraid, Emily. You think this suggests a major cover-up,

somewhere at the top of News International? I didn't say that.

Do you think that it does? I didn't say that, I'm not going into any

matters concerning Operation Weeting. Do you think you reached a

point in your career, you have been very clear with with where you

stand and what you think happened at the newspaper, when you were

there, did you reach a point in your career when you felt things

had gone too far, they were the wrong side of the moral equation?

All I will say is this, if there was a say the of criminality

reached, on our newspaper, it was confined to a very tiny number of

desperate people, but by and large, almost 99.9% of my colleagues were

first class decent, honourable journalists.

Thank you very much. Joining me now, the former deputy

PM, John, now Lord Prescott, the former Chief Constable of Thames

Valley Police, Peter Neyroud, author of an official review of

police ethics, and Jeff Edwards, the former chief crime

correspondent for the Daily Mirror, President of the Crime Reporters'

Association. What do you make of what you have

just heard? From someone who has been campaigning for five years

suggesting they were doing all these things, as Akers point the

out in the inquiry today, it is not just -- pointed out in the inquiry

today, it is not just that it happened, but it was that it was

maintained a lie, they said it was one rogue reporter and only the

News of the World, and now it is the Sun, all maintained they did

full investigations and there was no evidence to prove it. Now it is

their own people that give e-mail that is clearly shows bribery of

the police was under way. Let's see what comes out of the investigation

and the crime. Getting together in a kind of conspiracy of silence, to

and perpetuate the lie. The papers used to say when I attacked them

and others, they quoted what Mr Yates says, and there was no

evidence. And when the police said, they said quote what the

investigations of the press have done. Both xierd to maintain the

lie. That is what -- conspired to maintain the lie. Sue Akers talked

about Whitehall and other public officials? That has extended it

further than we thought. We have heard a systemic system to bribe

anywhere on a long-term basis to get the stories. It tends to

concentrate on celebrities or people like myself that are known.

What were they doing on the thousands of other cases, it is the

ordinary people, the police in this case lost the trust and confidence

of people, because they were allowing this to go on. It was a

total contempt of trust. Peter Neyroud, you could say this is

actually the most frightening element of this whole inquiry, a

tight knit circle of influence and corruption between public

institutions? There is two or three things that have emerged. The level

of corruption of police officers through the organisation, which

started off as stkwrus a few, now seems to be -- just a few, now

seems to be quite considerable. It needs to be dealt with. It is easy

to think about corruption that has been there, go back into the 1970s

there were periods of corruption, this appears to be another one of

those T appears to be the organisation just didn't appreciate

how damaging the relationship could be and has become.

Sue Akers says she will route out all those who received bungs,

bribes -- root out all those who received bungs, bribes whatever,

what would you do if you were head of the Met, would you go and seek

these people? Yes, exactly as is being done. You have to, we now

understand, not just the activities of individuals, but the damage that

Lord Prescott has pointed out, it is doing to the police's reputation,

and the trust the public has about how the information the police have

got is being used. Do you think differently about the police now,

do you think about become ago police commissioner? It wasn't

because of -- Becoming a police commissioner? It wasn't because

what the community had some influence over the police, in a

democracy, it is the other way round. That question is raised with

the arguments of regional police commissioners. The police have been

in the spotlight, Neville Thurlbeck is making it clear that it is a

normal part of life in Fleet Street, and that kind of payment just goes

on? I can absolutely refute that. Certainly when I was at the Mirror,

there was not a culture like that at all. Interestingly, between

1980-1985, I was employed at the News of the World as crime

correspondent, I was removed from my post because of my complete

reluctance and refusal to pay police officers. You think you lost

your job because of that? I was told so. I didn't leave the company,

but I was removed from that post and somebody else was put into it

who was more prepared to take that kind of action. Shortly after that

I got another job somewhere else, because you know...Describe What

you knew from that newsroom then? think there was, it was very hard

to think back about specifics then, but there was always, I thought, at

the News of the World, a deeply rooted culture of underhandness, of

corrupt practice. I think that I had come in from London evening

newspapers where there was no history or tradition of that sort

of behaviour, and I built my reputation on doing the job

transparently and honestly, being an honest broker. To an extent I

knew what I was entering, but I was hoping that I would actually be

able to change things. That wasn't the case at all. Did you know this

existed, did everyone quietly accept that it existed? Not to this

scale. Certainly, when in Thames valley and earlier on I was a press

officer in Hampshire earlier on in my career, I certainly was awar of

individual police officers, for example, who were passing

information -- aware of individual police officers passing

manufactures off logs. They wouldn't be disciplined? We tried

to seek them out and prosecute, in Thames valley. We certainly sought

them out. I think Lord Leveson has made it clear it is no longer

business as usual. There is a total and utter failure

of the press complaints industry, there was the body not able to do

anything about it and admit the press was lying to them. What was

interesting about Neville Thurlbeck, is he made it sound like friends

and friends of police, might have received payments, but they never

received them directly, did you know that went on, was that a

recognised pattern? Some of that, and certainly the looking for the

cousin, the niece, the wife, et cetera, I have had some

investigations in Thames valley that led to that. I think the

biggest problem that the Metropolitan Police have certainly

faced is a very small number of former police officers, who have

been quick to exploit being a conduit between acting police

officers, acting as a cut-out, they are the people who get paid. They

probably pass money on to the serving police officers. Is it ever

OK to leak to the press? No. It isn't. I think it is. I think it is

sometimes. You would be amazed at the sort of level I have had

information leaked from, up to Chief Constable level, on occasions.

Sometimes it has been, sometimes it has been well thought through, it

there has been a specific purpose behind it. One man's leak is

somebody else's pro-active piece of information. When the person acting

for the Met said it is right to have lunch with the News of the

World, under investigation, what other Police Authority does that?

Thank you very much gentlemen. There is more pressure tonight on

the welfare-to-work company, A4e, who have hundreds of millions worth

of Government contracts, and are at the centre of a police fraud

inquiry. There was always for the - - calls for the contracts to be

extended. Emma Harrison, the chair of the company, has quit her job.

We heard further allegations from A4e from a former client.

It was all pally once, the employment consultancy A4e, was

making millions from Government contracts, the Government, like the

last, happy to use a private sector specialist to get the unemployed

back into work. It was pally too between A4e's boss and David

Cameron, he made her his back to work Tsar. Now the relationship is

mired in accusations of fraud and cover-up.

Last week four former staff at A4e were arrested for fraud. Emma

Harrison stepped down as David Cameron's adviser, and then as the

boss of A4e itself. But questions remain. What did the Government

know about A4e and its boss, and when? When you are appointing

advisers for a half a billion pound programme, you normally make

background checks. We want to know did the Prime Minister ask the back

office were there any problems appointing Harrison. Did the office

say there was a fraud investigation under way in Emma Harrison's

company, at the moment we haven't any answers. This woman, unemployed

from Leicester, has raised questions about A4e's practices,

she was offered a job on in sales on �7,000 a year plus commission.

When she asked for the terms and conditions in writing, things got

complicated. A4e called me on Monday to say I had the job. I

asked if I could have that in writing, if I could have the

details of the job, the pay, the hours, the terms and conditions of

the job, just in writing, just so I knew exactly what it was I was

agreeing to. What did they say? They said that would make me seem

awkward to the employier, and that is not how -- employer, and that is

not how businesses work. It was then she said they made an

extraordinary suggestion? They said you don't have to tell the

Jobcentre, try it for a week without telling the Jobcentre.

they told you to work without telling the Jobcentre how did it

make you feel? Well I want to be a police officer, and I'm interested

in the law and abiding by it. To be told to be against the rules of my

benefit claim, that is not OK to me. A4e has launched its own internal

investigation into the fraud claims. But pressure is growing in

parliament to suspend its contracts. I have been astonished by the

number of e-mails, letters and phone calls I have had, both from

ex-employees and clients of A4e, full of allegations, both of

malpractice and of poor practice. That is why I have consistently

said that any common sense attitude by the Government now would mean

that they should call a halt to the A4e work, suspend the contracts,

right across Government, carry out their own investigation, don't

depend on the A4e's internal investigation, and refer all

further allegations to the police. Companies that help ministers meet

targets can find it easy to make friends in high places, while it

was bidding for work, under Labour, A4e employed the former minister,

David Blunkett, as a consultant. Then it employed a former Cameron

staffer, one Jaunty Olive Cooper as head of strategy. Now it has viewer

friends and faces questions. A4e said the Government was told of the

fraud investigation in November 2010, ten days before David Cameron

appointed Emma Harrison as his adviser. Tonight the DWP said they

were only formally notified in February 2011. The question is who

is right? In a molt the Russian oligarch,

Beresford bears, will debate -- -- In a letter co-signed by the Lib

Dem peer Shirley Williams, he said he backed amendments to limit

competition and the role of the private sector, will pressure from

the Lib Dems, even at the top, have an affect on David Camerons plans

for the health service. Was the letter a surprise? Not really,

today, Monday and Wednesday, would always be the big votes in the

Lords, and the Liberal Democrats in the Lords are amongst the most

vocal opponents of the bill. It would always come to a head. Now we

have this letter, Nick Clegg and Shirley Williams co-signed. What is

interesting is you have spring conference, where you will see all

the activists. Alongside the Lib Dem peers you have another

disgruntled group. He had to be seen to come out and get something

from the Government in terms of the bill. That is what we have seen

from the letter. What is interesting from the clip we will

play, is he's self-conscious that the Prime Minister knew and the

Prime Minister gave him the OK to go ahead and write the letter.

course we have discussed these in Government, there are, as you know,

a much wider range of amendments being debated in the coming days.

It is important to address the concerns people have expressed

about the role of competition. I have always regarded competition as

a means to a better NHS and not an end in itself. That is why the

amendments will make it clear that competition is the servant of the

NHS, never the master. It sound perfectly choreographed, were the

Tories upset by the demands? They would say, actually these demands,

it sounds like he's calling for an end to capitalism when you read the

letter, but when you boil them down, they are five or six demands across

disparate areas of the bill. If he wanted to go for the area he said

he did, which is competition, he would strike out section 3, which

the Labour Party say they will do, he's not calling forethat. They are

incredibly complicated things he's calling for, and they are

meaningful, but they are not there, let's get rid of that, we have done

it. It is difficult to fully agree with how he has claimed it. The

other thing, you have to remember there is a series of things being

negotiated across Government, not just the NHS bill, a huge budget is

being negotiated, every time the Liberal Democrats come forward and

say they want this on an area like public policy, on an area like the

NHS, the Tories are thinking we will keep that, and when we have a

debate about mansion taxes and increase in tax thresholds. What

about their backbenchers? We have a clip from one, Nick de Bois, they

are fed up that the Liberal Democrats are negotiating in public

and the Tories are more discreet. I'm surprised by the intervention.

I think it is more about politics than substance. The key thing is,

if that what it takes to get the bill on the statute bill, then so

be it. The idea it could be about to go on to the statute book, they

can't believe they are about to possibly get this bill all the way

through to being policy. It has been a headache for the Government.

Russia's state-controlled television has said the Government

has foiled a plan to assassinate the Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin.

Channel One TV, says the plot, previously unreported, has come

from terrorists in the Ukraine, who plan to kill Vladimir Putin after

the next election. The timing, before Russians go to the polls,

has caused some to question the official version of the news.

We will be speaking to our panel in a moment. First we report from

Moscow. The Russian TV report showed

Ukrainian forces storming a building in Odessa three weeks ago.

Inside was a man said to be on an international wanted list. Adam

Osmayev. Russian TV said he previously lived in this house,

rocked by an explosion, in which an accomplice died. He told

interrogators they were going to Moscow to try to assassinate

Vladimir Putin. He said they would use mines, but he wasn't going to

do it himself, the guy who died was. The deadline was after the

presidential election. Another man, arrested with him,

said they were told to go to Odessa, to learn to make bombs. Then in

Moscow, they would engineer diversions at economic facilities.

Finally, would come the attack on Putin.

This laptop, shown to the reporter, by an investigator, from Russia's

FSB security agency, supposedly shows details of the plot.

Including, it was said, a video of Mr Putin's motorcade.

But on the streets of Moscow itself, where Mr Putin is certain to be

elected President next month, the details of the plot weren't causing

much alarm today. Most people were cynical about its very existence.

TRANSLATION: It's not serious, it is not serious at all. It can't be

true. Why? TRANSLATION: Because it just can't be.

Tran tran -- TRANSLATION: We're in an election campaign, and this

story is just meant to get people interested. Many people condemn

Putin, his policies, so I think he thought this story up himself.

REPORTER: He thought it up himself? TRANSLATION: Yes, I think so, he

did it all himself. TRANSLATION: I think it is a PR

campaign. TRANSLATION: What is the aim? TRANSLATION: To raise Putin's

rating, I suppose. The assassination story comes a day

after thousands of anti-Putin protestors formed a living ring

around the centre of Moscow, the latest demonstration in their

campaign for fairer elections. They say the Kremlin rigged the voting

for a new parliament three months ago, they are convinced the same

thing will happen again in the presidential poll this coming

Sunday. In reply, Mr Putin has suggested

his critics are serving an outside agenda, and that Russia needs to be

defended. TRANSLATION: We won't allow anyone to impose their will

on us, because we have our own will, that's always helped us to win. We

are a nation of victors, it is in our genes, it gets passed on from

generation to generation, and we will win this time. I want to ask

you, Welwyn. Today's story, about an assassination plot against Mr

Putin, is confusing in many details, Ukrainian security officials

initially refused to confirm they suspected any such conspiracy S

although they later said it was true. Many here feel the case will

be used to crackdown on opponents, who the Prime Minister likes to

portray as a dangerous fifth column. Russians remember that under both

Lenin and Stalin, assassination plots, real or contrived, triggered

waves of brutal repression. Even this business tycoon, who normally

avoids criticising Putin is worried. TRANSLATION: Who says history

doesn't repeat itself, it might be repeating itself.

All of the famous processes against the troits skiists, and right and

left centre. You are paralleling with 1930s? All built on conspiring

against Stalin or the revolution. Look at this, this morning's news

from Odessa, that they have actually arrested some people

trying to organise an attempt on Putin's life. There is already some

syllables about some London, exiles involvement, look at the

manifestations, Putin was talking to 130,000 people, in the January,

it was 19th of January 1937, 200,000 people were brought to

Moscow, they marched through the streets, and they spoke to crush

chof, in support of Stalin killing all of the opposition. These

similarities are sometimes rather unnerving. No wonder knows what

will happen after Putin declares his victory, of course there will

be no return to the 1930s, but more plots, that's pretty certain.

Sergei Markov is what is known as an election representative for

Prime Minister Putin, he joins us from Washington, and Boris

Berezovsky, an oligarch, living in London, a known opposer to

President Putin. You heard what was said there, it is all part of an

election campaign, probably thought up by Putin himself? I feel strange

myself, frankly speaking, I respect the BBC, now this BBC looks like

anti-Putin propaganda special tape, maybe I don't know. A -- you had

three recordings, all anti-Putin, you mentioned about people

criticising Putin, I didn't see the name, I suppose it Alexander

Lebedev by voice, he's sponsoring very strong anti-Putin media in

Washington. Why did you tell him not to criticise others, it is not

true. We are happy for you to defend this. We all know it was

Vladimir Putin to crush, radical Islamists terrorist Government in

Chechnya, and also crushed tycoons like Boris Berezovsky, and

others...(inaudible) all them hate him. The reason we are talking

about this tonight, is we have only heard about this plot today, and

Russia is weeks away from an election, that is why many think

the timing is rather suspicious? Please don't stop me, why are you

interrupting me, I'm sorry, you are like Fox News, please, everybody

knows that Vladimir Putin has a lot of enemies, tycoons, and also this

radical Islamists also, and others. Of course they try to organise some

kind of killing of him a few times, just Russian Government inform

public opinion. Don't interrupt me, why you interrupt me.... I think we

have to go to the studio guest, there is no reason why this

wouldn't be a real plot against a man in power who clearly has

enemies? I think definitely, there should be conspiracy --

transparency that it was a real plot, and that it was not. My

understanding is it is really strange that every time, before

elections it has happened. In 2000, it happened, in 2004, it happened

in 208, it is almost the same story. In 2000 we have houses explosion,

Putin election campaign. And then the second Chechen war, in 2004 we

have, again, an attempt of assassination. To be fair the

Ukrainians have now admitted there was this plot, we know the plot

exists? I'm not sure, I don't believe in this story 100%. I can

refuse this story. But, again, for me it looks like a made up story,

because it is all the time the same, but today was very funny. You have

no evidence, have you? It is, you asked my opinion, and I just give

you answer. Let me go back to Sergei Markov, you mentioned

Lebedev, he thinks this will be used as an excuse to crack down on

opposition groups, make everyone who opposes Putin sound like a

terrorist? I mentioned it is not neutral journalism if you called

Lebedev, who didn't criticise Vladimir Putin, he criticising

Putin many times. He is financially supported by a very anti-Putin

media in Russia. I don't think this will be used for cracking down on

the position. Vladimir Putin has polarity, something about 60%,

according to all polls. Why a leader with 60% popularity needs to

support his position. That is a good point, I'm putting your point

to Boris Berezovsky, if Putin is doing so well in the polls why does

he have to pull a stunt? appreciate that he's supporting Mr

Putin in the campaign, he supported in 2004 and he lost completely the

other person, and I appreciate that he's supporting Putin in his

campaign. Why would you pull a stunt with these polls? I don't

believe the polls he's representing. I supported victor in election and

he won the election and then the revolution happened, and we didn't

prepare for that. I was talking that it will be revolution, I

predicted it would be revolution, but they didn't listen to us. They

believed that he won the election. In the election people will have

badges for the revolution, that will happen. Many people in Moscow

seem to question whether this plot was real or not, as you heard from

Boris Berezovsky, he says there is a pattern, this kind of thing

emerges ahead of every single election? Of course not every

single election. We remember that when Vladimir Putin had been

elected in the year 200, it was the -- 2000, it was the real war in

Chechnya, we remember, it was army, it was a big territory controlled

by terrorists. They directly repeated many times that they will

attack Russian civilians in Russian cities, in the heart of Russia.

They made it. It is everything clear only this. Then in the next

elections, 2008, and 2004, nothing happened. Boris Berezovsky, briefly,

do you think that these demonstrations that we have seen in

the past few days will result in anything, or do you think that

Putin's grip on power is pretty solid? I'm sure Putin could falsify

the election with the help of Mr Markov and people like him. But

Putin will be never in Russia. Briefly? All psychological points

are repeated and repeated, but Putin's popularity allows him to

win with something like 58%. What reason to make a falsification

before the election, if the polls show you. It is very strange, you

know. Thank you very much indeed.

That's all from Newsnight tonight. The Artist was last night only the